Kyoto Protocol

Jimmy Hood: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the Government plans to meet the Kyoto agreement to cut carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 12.5 percent. by 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Elliot Morley: The Government set out its policy on reducing emissions of the six greenhouse gases covered under the Kyoto Protocol in its publication 'Climate Change: The UK Programme' (CM 4913) in 2000. This publication contains a set of flexible measures covering a range of different sectors—including transport, agriculture, business and households.
	The UK remains on course to meet its Kyoto target of a 12.5 percent. reduction on base year levels by 2008–2012. Details of the reductions in greenhouse gas levels achieved so far, the main measures already in place and future options under consideration to achieve further reductions in greenhouse gas levels are contained in the 2004 'Review of the UK Climate Change Programme Consultation Paper' (PB 10372). A revised Climate Change Programme will be published later this year.

Better Regulation Executive

Celia Barlow: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Better Regulation Executive report, Less is More.

John Hutton: The Government published a formal response to the Better Regulation Task Force (BRTF) report "Less is More" on 18 July 2005, copies of which are available in the Library. Implementation of the recommendations in the BRTF report is on track. For example:
	In response to the recommendations about making it easier to remove or amend outdated or unnecessary regulation, the Government has already set out its proposals in a consultation document, "A Bill for Better Regulation", published on 20 July 2005.
	On 15 September the Cabinet Office launched a major project to measure and then reduce the amount of paperwork and administration costs that Government regulations impose on British businesses and charities. This will involve extensive interviews with businesses, charities and voluntary organisations to estimate how much it costs them to comply with Government regulations.
	The BRTF also recommended that the Cabinet Office establish "by the end of 2005" a new mechanism for business and other stakeholders to submit regulatory reform proposals to Government. This was launched on 15 September. Details are available at www.betterregulation.gov.uk. Departments and agencies will have 90 working days to respond to such proposals.

Debt Relief

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
	(1)  to how many countries he proposes to extend the Government's debt relief programme;
	(2)  to which poor countries the Government's current debt relief programmes apply; and how they are structured.

Andrew George: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much (a) bilateral and (b) multilateral (i) aid and (ii) debt relief for developing countries he has committed from UK Treasury resources since the G8 summit at Gleneagles.

Ivan Lewis: The annual departmental report for the Department for International Development (DFID) sets out DFID's current spending plans and reports on outturn expenditure for previous years. Each departmental report's analysis of DFID expenditure covers: bilateral aid expenditure, including all forms of direct assistance; expenditure through multilateral institutions; DFID expenditure in support of the HIPC initiative and the multilateral debt relief initiative, for those years in which these initiatives have been in place.
	Reports outline DFID's expenditure plans and do not distinguish between pledges and commitments.
	DFID's departmental report was first published in 1999. The Secretary of State for International Development has arranged for copies of the report from 1999 to 2005 to be placed in the Library of the House. Information on DFID expenditure is to be found in: Annex 1, Table 5 of the 1999 and 2000 reports; Annex 2, Table 10 of the 2001 report; Annex 1, Table 4 of the 2002 to 2005 reports.
	In the 2004 Spending Review, the Chancellor announced that DFID's budget would increase from £4.5 billion in 2005–06 to £5.0 billion in 2006–07 and to £5.3 billion in 2007–08. The Department has set out its expenditure plans within this framework in its departmental report 2005. For ease of reference, the Department's total planned expenditure on bilateral aid programmes and through multilateral institutions for the period 2005–06 to 2007–08 is set out in Table 1. This excludes the UK's share of the EC aid budget which is set against DFID's budget. It also excludes most UK expenditure on debt relief, although DFID's contribution to the HIPC Trust Fund is included. This is because most of our internationally agreed debt relief is provided on debts held by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD). Debt relief that goes beyond what is required by international agreements is funded by DFID. DFID's bilateral and multilateral aid expenditure plans were not changed in light of the G8 Finance Ministers summit in June.
	
		Table 1
		
			   £ million 
			  Plans Bilateral expenditure  Multilateral 
		
		
			 2005–06 2,062 1,085 
			 2006–07 2,111 1,282 
			 2007–08 2,261 1,306 
		
	
	Debt relief
	The Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative provides qualifying countries with relief and cancellation of debts owed to multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, as well as debts to bilateral governments. To date, debt relief worth $56 billion (in nominal terms) has been agreed for 28 countries, other countries are likely to enter the Initiative next year. The World Bank and IMF estimate that the HIPC Initiative has been freeing up around $1 billion a year from debt service payments for the 28 countries that have qualified under HIPC. The UK is the second largest contributor to the HIPC Trust Fund, which assists multilateral institutions with the costs of providing debt relief under HIPC. We pledged a total of $436 million to the Trust Fund ($221 million, plus $88 million of the European Commission contribution in 2000, and a further $95 million, plus $32 million of an EC contribution in 2002). In addition, the UK also contributed US$43 million to assist the International Monetary Fund with its costs of delivering HIPC debt relief. 18 countries have qualified for Completion Point of HIPC (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Guyana, Ghana, Honduras, Mali, Mauritania, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia). Another 10 have reached Decision Point (Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Sierra Leone and Sao Tome and Principe). A further 10 are eligible for debt relief under HIPC once they meet Decision Point criterion (Central African Republic, Comoros, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Lao Pdr, Liberia, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Togo). A final list of countries eligible for HIPC under the Sunset Clause will be released early next year.
	On bilateral debt, the Government have cancelled the aid debts owed by the poorest countries (not just the HIPCs), worth some £1.2 billion since 1978.
	In 1999, the Government agreed to cancel 100 per cent. of bilateral debts owed by HIPC countries to the UK when these countries completed the HIPC process. Since most aid debts had already been cancelled, these were export credit guarantee debts. For HIPC countries, total UK debt written off so far (to August 2005) is around £1.2 billion; this includes traditional Paris Club debt treatment, as well as the application of our 100 per cent. bilateral cancellation policy under the HIPC Initiative.
	In 2000, the Government agreed that they would not benefit from debt service payments from HIPC countries, and that any payments received from December 2000 would be held in trust and reimbursed to the country once it had successfully completed the HIPC process.
	In 2004, recognising the poorest countries were still having to curtail spending on poverty reduction in order to service their debts, the Government proposed greater relief on debts owed by countries to international institutions. The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) began on 1 January 2005, under which we committed to pay our share, 10 per cent., of qualifying countries' debt service payments to International Development Association of the World Bank and the African Development Fund. We expect to spend about $46 million on qualifying countries this financial year.
	In June 2005, the Finance Ministers of the G8 countries endorsed a proposal to cancel all the remaining debts of Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank and African Development Fund (AfDF). Details are still under discussion, but when agreed by the international community, the deal will be worth approximately $55 billion in debt stock cancellations for the current 38 HIPCs. Donors will provide approximately $49 billion of this over the next 40 years to IDA and AfDF to compensate for foregone reflows. The cost of debt relief at the IMF ($6.1 billion) will be financed from internal resources, although the donors have committed to provide additional resources if needed to ensure that the IMF's ability to assist poor countries is not diminished. It is estimated that the annual resources freed up by the proposal will be around $1 billion in 2007, rising to around $1.7 billion in 2010—resources that will enable countries to tackle poverty.
	The G8's proposal, when agreed, will supersede the MDRI for HIPCs. The precise costs to the UK are yet to finalised, but are likely to be in the region of $6 billion over the whole period of implementation. In addition, the UK will continue to meet its obligations under the MDRI to qualifying non-HIPC countries. This will cover IDA-only, low-income countries with a sufficiently robust public financial management system, the current proxy for this being budget support from the World Bank through a Poverty Reduction Support Credit. The value of this assistance will be $184 million until 2015 for currently eligible countries (Armenia, Mongolia, Sri Lanka and Vietnam), potentially rising to $463 million until 2015 for all potentially eligible countries.
	G8 Finance Ministers also reiterated in June their continued commitment to the full implementation and financing of HIPC. The UK already meets and exceeds its commitments under HIPC. Our commitment to HIPC and other bilateral debt cancellation policies continue and were not altered by the G8 Finance Ministers' decisions in June.

Fly-posting

Mark Tami: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many prosecutions for fly posting on motorway bridges in England and Wales there have been in each of the last five years.

Yvette Cooper: This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

Environmental Sustainability

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the Department's main suppliers of (a) copier paper, (b) stationery, (c) envelopes and (d) paper for reports; and what (i) the name of each paper used and (ii) the recycled and post-consumer recycled content of each paper is.

Charles Clarke: The contract to supply paper and paper products to the Home Department is held by the company Office Depot. In addition to the aforementioned contract the prison service also hold a contract with James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd. to supply paper and paper products to Prison Service Enterprise and Supply Services Internal Industries.
	Office Depot provide a wide range of stationery products to the Home Office and to provide details of every paper and paper product supplied would incur disproportionate costs.
	I am however able to provide details of the top 10 paper and paper products purchased from Office Depot by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content of each paper in the categories requested.
	Details of the top 10 paper and paper products purchased from James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd. by brand name and where available the recycled and post consumer recycled content for copier paper is in the following table.
	
		(a) Copier paper
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Niceday Environmental 3500 Recycled Paper A4 80gsm 80–89 (6)— 0 
			 Easyday 3000 Laser Copier A4 80gWH 0 0 0 
			 Easyday 4000 A4 80 g HE 0 0 0 
			 Niceday 6000 A4 80 GSM White 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Tinted Paper Pale Yellow 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Blue 0 0 0 
			 Envt 3500 Recycled Paper A3 80gsm 80–89 (6)— 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Green 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Pale Pink 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Pastel Tinted Paper Mid Green 0 0 0 
		
	
	(6) Various pcw content depending on availability
	
		(b) Stationery
		
			  Percentage 
			 Stationery item Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 N2 Divider A4 10Pt Col Tabs 0 0 0 
			 N2 Divider A4 5Part Colour Tab 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Desk Calendar A4 15 Month 2006 0 0 0 
			 Envt Divider A4 10Pt Col Tabs 100 0 100 
			 Easyday Notes 3x3 Yellow 0 0 0 
			 N2 Divider 10Pt Extra Wide 0 0 0 
			 N2 Easyday Year Planner Unmounted 2006 0 0 0 
			 N2 Manuscript Book A4 96LF 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Diary A5 one W/T/V Black 2006 0 0 0 
			 Envt Divider A4 5PT Colour Tab 100 0 100 
		
	
	
		(c) Envelopes
		
			  Percentage 
			 Type of envelope Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Envt Bubble Postal Bag 020788 0 0 0 
			 Easyday Env 114x1629088 White 0 0 0 
			 Envt Envelope 324x229 90 Self seal Buff 100 85 0 
			 Easyday 0 0 0 
			 Envelope 110x2209088 White — — — 
			 Mail Lite 270x360 Gold Bubble Lined 0 0 0 
			 Environmental Envelope 229x1629088 BF 100 85 0 
			 Easyday Env 324x22911588 Man 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope 324x229 90g Self Seal Buff 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope C4 324x229mm Manilla Gummed 90g 100 85 0 
			 Environmental Envelope C5 229x1 62mm Manila Gummed 90g 100 85 0 
		
	
	
		(d) Paper for reports
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Niceday Duplicator Blue A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday Duplicator Yellow A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1PT70g Pain Laser 0 0 0 
			 HP Premium n/a n/a n/a 
			 Plus Photo Paper A4 C6832A — — — 
			 Niceday 11x9.5 1PT70g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations 0 0 0 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1PT60g Plain 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Duplicator A4 80g White 0 10 90 
			 Nicely 11x9.5 1PT60g Plain Micro Vertical Perforations 0 0 0 
			 Niceday Duplicator Green A4 80gsm 0 10 90 
			 Niceday 11x14.5 1 PT 60g Music Ruled 0 0 0 
		
	
	n/a=not available
	
		James MacNaughton Paper Group Ltd paper products
		
			  Percentage 
			 Name of paper used Recycled content (unspecified) Recycled content (post-consumer waste) Recycled content (pre-consumer waste) 
		
		
			 Challenger T/Pulp No No No 
			 HMP Offset No No No 
			 HM Manila Yes No 80 
			 Reacto No No No 
			 Prosp/Kingstn No No No 
			 Challenger Velvet No No No 
			 Reflex No No No 
			 Challenger W/Pulp No No No 
			 Supercol No No No 
			 Greybd Yes 100 No

Green Ministers

Lynne Featherstone: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the meetings at which his Department has been represented on the delivery of sustainable development across Government as co-ordinated by the Ministerial Sub-committee of Green Ministers.

Charles Clarke: Although the Government publish the title, membership and terms of reference of Cabinet Committees, it has been the practice of successive governments not to disclose details of their proceedings.

Looked-after Children

Edward Davey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many looked-after children entered higher education in each of the last three years in (a) England, (b) each region and (c) each local authority; and if she will make a statement.

Jacqui Smith: The information available is shown in the following table:
	
		Number and percentage of former care leavers who were in higher education on their 19th birthday and who were looked after on1 April in their 17th year, 2002–2004(7) Number
		
			  Number of former care leavers Number in Higher Education (above A level) 
			  2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004 
		
		
			 England 4,700 4,900 5,100 200 300 300 
			
			 North East 240 250 260 10 10 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Durham 40 45 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Northumberland 30 35 25 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Darlington 10 10 5 0 (8)— 0 
			 Hartlepool (8)— 5 10 0 0 0 
			 Middlesbrough 5 10 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 Redcar and Cleveland (8)— 10 10 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Stockton On Tees 20 10 10 0 0 (8)— 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Gateshead 30 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Newcastle Upon Tyne 30 35 40 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 North Tyneside 25 20 25 0 0 (8)— 
			 South Tyneside 20 20 20 0 0 (8)— 
			 Sunderland 25 25 35 (8)— 0 0 
			
			 North West 670 680 700 20 30 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Cheshire 40 45 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Cumbria 35 40 40 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Lancashire 125 110 115 5 10 10 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Blackburn and Darwen 20 20 25 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Blackpool 20 20 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Halton 10 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Warrington 5 10 15 0 0 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Bolton 25 20 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Bury 15 15 20 0 0 0 
			 Knowsley 10 20 20 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Liverpool 70 85 80 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Manchester 85 75 95 0 0 (8)— 
			 Oldham 25 20 20 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Rochdale 20 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Salford 30 35 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Sefton 10 20 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 St Helens 20 20 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 Stockport 30 25 25 0 0 0 
			 Tameside 15 10 15 (8)— 0 0 
			 Trafford 10 10 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 Wigan 25 25 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Wirral 20 25 35 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			
			 Yorkshire and The Humber 470 470 490 10 (8)— 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 North Yorkshire 40 35 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 East Riding Yorkshire 10 15 10 0 0 (8)— 
			 Kingston Upon Hull 40 35 40 0 0 (8)— 
			 North East Lincolnshire 20 20 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 North Lincolnshire 15 15 15 0 0 (8)— 
			 York 10 10 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Barnsley 20 30 25 (8)— 0 0 
			 Bradford 50 45 45 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Calderdale 20 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Doncaster 30 20 30 (8)— 0 0 
			 Kirklees 35 35 30 0 0 0 
			 Leeds 85 70 85 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Rotherham 15 25 25 0 0 0 
			 Sheffield 35 50 50 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Wakefield 40 30 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 East Midlands 310 300 330 10 10 10 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Derbyshire 45 50 55 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Leicestershire 25 25 30 0 0 0 
			 Lincolnshire 35 40 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Northamptonshire 75 50 75 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Nottinghamshire 35 35 30 (8)— 0 0 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Derby 25 30 35 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Leicester 30 25 30 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Nottingham 40 40 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Rutland (8)— (8)— (8)— 0 0 0 
			
			 West Midlands 510 520 540 40 20 30 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Shropshire 30 15 25 10 (8)— 0 
			 Staffordshire 45 60 50 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Warwickshire 50 35 40 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Worcestershire 45 50 55 (8)— 5 (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Herefordshire 20 20 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Stoke-on-Trent 20 30 25 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Telford and Wrekin 20 20 15 (8)— 0 0 
			 Metropolitan Districts   
			 Birmingham 135 135 155 (8)— 5 (8)— 
			 Coventry 20 30 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Dudley 20 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Sandwell 35 35 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Solihull 25 15 30 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Walsall 20 25 25 0 (8)— 0 
			 Wolverhampton 25 20 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 East of England 410 410 410 10 20 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Bedfordshire 30 25 30 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Cambridgeshire 40 45 35 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Essex 85 105 85 (8)— 10 (8)— 
			 Hertfordshire 70 65 70 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Norfolk 75 55 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Suffolk 35 45 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Luton 15 10 30 0 0 (8)— 
			 Peterborough 25 20 20 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Southend 20 20 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Thurrock 15 20 25 0 (8)— (8)— 
			
			 London 1,100 1,150 1,310 70 140 110 
			 Inner London 520 560 660 40 60 50 
			 Camden 35 30 45 10 5 (8)— 
			 City of London 0 (8)— (8)— 0 0 0 
			 Greenwich 30 40 35 0 0 0 
			 Hackney 50 55 50 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Hammersmith and Fulham 45 45 60 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Islington 40 70 70 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Kensington and Chelsea 30 35 30 (8)— 0 5 
			 Lambeth 70 85 120 (8)— 10 15 
			 Lewisham 50 50 60 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Southwark 70 60 80 10 5 (8)— 
			 Tower Hamlets 25 20 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Wandsworth 35 50 35 (8)— 15 (8)— 
			 Westminster 35 20 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			
			 Outer London 580 590 640 20 80 60 
			 Barking and Dagenham 25 25 35 0 (8)— 0 
			 Barnet 35 25 25 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Bexley 25 15 30 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Brent 30 30 40 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Bromley 40 25 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Croydon 30 45 60 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Ealing 40 50 45 (8)— 5 15 
			 Enfield 35 30 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Haringey 40 55 80 0 10 (8)— 
			 Harrow 25 30 10 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Havering 20 10 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Hillingdon 45 75 60 0 (8)— 10 
			 Hounslow 20 25 30 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Kingston Upon Thames 20 15 15 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Merton 15 15 15 0 (8)— 0 
			 Newham 45 35 40 (8)— 5 5 
			 Redbridge 10 10 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Richmond Upon Thames 15 15 20 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Sutton 5 20 10 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Waltham Forest 65 40 30 (8)— 30 (8)— 
			
			 South East 610 700 650 20 40 20 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Buckinghamshire 30 30 20 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 East Sussex 40 35 35 0 0 (8)— 
			 Hampshire 80 85 75 10 (8)— (8)— 
			 Kent 120 135 135 5 5 (8)— 
			 Oxfordshire 30 35 40 0 0 (8)— 
			 Surrey 55 70 65 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 West Sussex 65 100 85 0 10 10 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Bracknell Forest 5 15 20 0 0 0 
			 Brighton and Hove 25 25 30 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Isle of Wight 15 15 10 0 0 0 
			 Medway Towns 25 25 25 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Milton Keynes 25 25 25 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Portsmouth 10 25 20 0 0 0 
			 Reading 25 15 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 Slough 15 10 15 0 0 (8)— 
			 Southampton 20 25 20 0 (8)— 0 
			 West Berkshire 10 10 5 0 0 0 
			 Windsor and Maidenhead 10 10 10 0 0 0 
			 Wokingham 10 5 (8)— 0 0 0 
			
			 South West 420 440 450 20 20 30 
			 Shire Counties   
			 Cornwall 45 45 50 (8)— (8)— 5 
			 Devon 70 55 65 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Dorset 25 25 35 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Gloucestershire 45 35 45 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Isles Of Scilly 0 0 0 0 0 0 
			 Somerset 35 40 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Wiltshire 25 25 20 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Unitary Authorities   
			 Bath and North East Somerset 15 10 15 (8)— 0 (8)— 
			 Bournemouth 15 20 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Bristol 45 75 45 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 North Somerset 15 20 10 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Plymouth 30 30 40 (8)— (8)— (8)— 
			 Poole 15 10 10 (8)— 0 0 
			 South Gloucestershire 10 15 15 (8)— (8)— 0 
			 Swindon 10 20 15 0 (8)— (8)— 
			 Torbay 15 20 25 0 0 (8)— 
		
	
	(7) Figures exclude children looked after under an agreed series of short term placements.
	(8) Figures between 1 and 5 have been suppressed.
	Notes:
	1. Figures are taken from the Department's SSDA 903 return.
	2. National figures are rounded to the nearest 100. Regional figures are rounded to the nearest 10.
	3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 5.
	Source:
	DFES

Licensing Fees (Charities)

Jeremy Hunt: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the rates charities, who operate licensed premises, are charged for their new licensing fee.

James Purnell: The licensing fees have been set centrally by Government at a level to enable licensing authorities to recover fully their legitimate administration, inspection and enforcement costs, while at the same time achieve arrangements which are fair to business, non commercial organisations and to other individuals seeking licences. The Government has established an Independent Licensing Fees Review Panel to consider whether the fees regime is meeting these objectives. The panel will deliver an interim review shortly, followed by a final report in autumn 2006.